Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to procure transmission‑scale energy storage while debate grows over SBC funding and distributed storage priorities
Summary
Assembly Bill 5,269 to procure and incentivize transmission‑scale energy storage was reported after testimony split between advocates for rapid procurement and groups raising concerns about using the Societal Benefit Charge (SBC) to provide at least $60 million per year.
The Assembly Appropriations Committee reported Assembly Bill 5,269, which would require the Board of Public Utilities to procure and incentivize transmission‑scale energy storage intended to support renewables and resource adequacy. Supporters said the measure would speed construction of large storage projects and aid grid reliability; opponents raised concerns about funding sources and impacts on ratepayers.
Lyle Rawlings of the Mid‑Atlantic Solar & Storage Industries Association urged the committee to include or coordinate with distributed (behind‑the‑meter) storage policies, arguing distributed projects can come online faster and provide critical backup for community infrastructure. He said distributed projects can be permitted and constructed quickly and could deliver capacity by 2026.
Ben Guiano, representing Jupiter Power and energy‑storage developers, described the bill as a mechanism to close project financing gaps through competitive procurement and noted the bill anticipates funding from the Clean Energy Fund and the SBC; he emphasized the procurement is competitive and designed to drive down costs.
Business groups, notably the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, questioned why the bill mandates a minimum $60 million and asked for clearer fiscal limits and oversight, warning the SBC collection has broad uses and ratepayers ultimately fund the charge. Michael Curry and other critics argued the SBC already funds multiple programs and that raising the allocation risks higher customer bills; Curry cited an SBC total near $344 million per year and said additional targeted transfers should be scrutinized.
Committee action: the bill was reported out of committee. Sponsors and stakeholders signaled ongoing negotiations about balancing transmission‑scale storage needs with support for distributed storage and ensuring transparent fiscal controls for SBC‑funded allocations.
